Ãå±±½ûµØ

On the Appellant’s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, UNAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend UNRWA’s regulatory framework. UNAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel’s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. UNAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to provide strategic and technical guidance to education staff in the field and that these factors were therefore legitimate and proper considerations. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT ignored the criterion of internal candidate priority was without merit. UNAT held that the approach taken by the interview panel to the questions so far as they may have varied was reasonable and did not detract from the fairness of the process. On the Appellant’s claim that the quality of the Skype call was poor, UNAT noted that the Appellant should have raised any quality concerns at the interview and asked for an alternative and there was no evidence that she did that. On the Appellant’s claim that the interview panel engaged with her in a superficial manner, UNAT considered that this was not supported by evidence. On the Appellant’s claims about irregularities in the written test, UNAT held that, to the extent that they occurred, they were not material or consequential because the written test score was not a determining fact in the final decision; the tests were used for the short-listing process, and the Appellant was short-listed. On the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT did not consider her hospitalization or subsequent sick leave, her expectation of promotion, or the restructuring of her department, UNAT held that these factors were irrelevant to the question of whether she received full and fair consideration. On the Appellant’s claim for compensation, UNAT held that this request did not form part of the request for decision review and therefore it was proper for UNRWA DT not to consider it. UNAT held that there was no merit to any of the Appellant’s complaints and that UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that she had received full and fair consideration for the position. UNAT held that no basis had been laid for challenging the discretion of UNRWA DT not to hold a hearing. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.